[rescue] Re: Ultra?

[Robert Novak]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Joshua D Boyd wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 10:55:23AM -0400, robert brooke gravitt wrote:
> 
> > Ultra 1, 2, 5, 10 or 30?
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure I know what the majority opinion is (the ultras 5,10&30 are
> > not as nice due to PCI -vs- SBUS, & other generally PC-ish qualities)
> 
> I have no problem with PCI.

PCI is fine. There aren't a lot of PC-ish qualities to an Ultra 30 (or
60). 

> U2s are potentially faster
> than anything else on that list due to taking two processors instead
> of only one.  But they are aging and are quite possibly the most
> expensive machine on the list

Actually, Ultra 2s are fairly inexpensive these days, at least in
single processor configs. A large config with 400mhz processors can be
steep, but a single 300 U2 and a single 300 U30 are likely to be close in
price. They use the same RAM and disks, so you could start with a U2 and
upgrade to a 30 or 60 later if you overcome your fear of PCI. Or start
with a U30 and upgrade to a U2 when you become CPU-bound, if you ever do. 

One other type of system to consider is the AXi-based system. Some (myself
included) have called it "what the Ultra 10 should have been"... it's a
U10-class Sun OEM board with SCSI, pretty much. You should be able to find
a complete system on ebay for $300-500 and you can expand later to a
440mhz cpu, while having the comfort of SCSI.

Another note on the various models is that the memory limitations are
different. U1/U5/U10/AXi max out at 1GB, U2/U30 at 2GB. Mind you, you may
never need 2GB for a casual home machine, but it's good to know these
things. 

--Rob

Robert Novak, Indyramp Consulting * rnovak at indyramp.com * indyramp.com/~rnovak
	"I don't want to doubt you, Know everything about you
      I don't want to sit Across the table from you Wishing I could run."